Obama Healthcare

[RagnaToad]

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I don't see why they would.

"Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?"

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

Like I said, both. I'll rephrase it: I respect that there's a difference, but I think it's a shame that some things aren't being done like in Europe. And don't think I want to change the USA into Europe. Not at all. I like American culture. You have the best guitars, a lot of great motorcycle brands and your cars are high quality (if only they would have started investing in greener cars when Asia started to do that...).

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

Very true.

Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.
It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way. It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective? (And I'm not trying to accuse you of not having perspective here.)

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office. You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

Then where was his point being made? Ok, he has a tv show. He can say whatever he wants without any explanation. But that just doesn't do it for me. If I want to hear a conservative approach, Glenn Beck would be the last person to listen to. He looks crazy.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

[Sasquatch]

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at a with this, but remember, the liberals in America have been trying to villainize "the rich" for decades.

I don't see why they would.

Because it's government funding.

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

It's not necessarily representative of your work ethic at the time -- it IS representative of your work ethic throughout life, including in school.

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

That's not what I said. Why don't you clarify what you were trying to say instead of trying to figure out what I said, when I didn't say anything.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.

So a liberal talk radio show, in your opinion, is objective ... and?

It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

If you're trying to say that this one show is not at all representative of all liberal media, why bring it up? Your point was that you think liberal media checks their stories more than Fox News, was it not?

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way.

It all depends on their market. If liberals watch liberal media, they probably either wouldn't even realize the existence of bias (which is the usual case) or wouldn't care about it.

It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective?

You've yet to prove that Fox News isn't neutral in their reporting. I can understand if your question might be about neutral commentary, but it wasn't, it was about news.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

Well, it was Bush Sr. -- Bush 41, George Herbert Walker Bush, the one in office from 89-93. He wasn't too bad. Of course, I had quite a few problems with Bush Jr., Bush 43, George Walker Bush, whichever you want to call him -- the one that recently got out of office. I just waited until he actually did something wrong before I pinned it on him, which is why I had to defend him against all the morons and their accusations.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

A different approach because of who did it. Not because of who's looking at it -- that would be a different standard held by a different group -- but because of who did it, which would be a different standard applied by the same group. It's kind of like how liberals had no problem with Jeremiah Wright's connection with Obama, but you bet your ass that they would have had a fit if somebody lik Fred Phelps had a relationship with a Republican.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office.

If they have a case, yes. The Constitution is more important than the President. And do you believe that no President before him has ever proved their country of birth? Of course they have. It's only a big deal with Obama because he hasn't. Hell, McCain even had to do it.

You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

Because upholding the Constitution IS the job of the President -- and proving his Constitutional eligibility falls within those lines.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

Sarah Palin wasn't nearly as bad as the media made her out to be. If she didn't have to focus on the ruthless attacks, insults, and character defamation by most of America's media, she would have had more time to concentrate on the campaign. Most of the bad opinions people have about her are based on ignorance.

Plus, I'd totally do her.

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough?

In America, you bet your ass.

I'm going to be you for a second ...

You can try. But lemme tell you, a lot of people try to be me, and it usually doesn't work out too well for them. God luck, though.

... "You're so ignorant, kid".

When have I ever said that?

Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

It might be harder, but by no means does that make it less possible.

A good example is private schools.

Oh, goody. You're talking about the quality of a private service over that of a public service, in a thread where you're backing a public service over a private service. This should be interesting.

Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school.

Those shitty public services! Damn, it's too bad everybody can't get into the private services because the public services are shit!

Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

It's a good thing that high school doesn't "equip" you for anything. Now, if you tried to say that I could afford to get into an Ivy League school and you had to attend a local community college or something, that would have worked better for your little story -- and even in that case, you could work your way up. It would take a little longer for you to be making as much money as I was, but you certainly wouldn't be poor. As long as you made good decisions and tried, you wouldn't be poor.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full?

If my little brother didn't get some of his pie taken away because he was a lazy little bastard all day, maybe. My little brother had the exact same opportunity as I did to earn more pie and he didn't -- I could give him some of mine, or I could keep it in the fridge and save it.

But giving him some of mine would be charity. Voluntarily giving your money away to causes you deem worthy, that's charity. Having your money stolen from you, by force if necessary, to be redistributed as the federal government sees fit, that's not charity.

Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

First, you're not talking about "giving", you're talking about having it taken from you by force. There's a difference between a man on the street asking for change and a mugger, you know.

Second, I'm more inclined to ask why people don't have the money for their healthcare. What did they do with the opportunities that they had?

And third, while you may consider it a "need", in America, it is not a "right". Sure, a lot of people "need" a car -- that doesn't mean that I should have my money taken from me to provide for those who don't provide for themselves.

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

If I have specific things to say in reply to each sentence, I'll quote just that sentence. It's not inaccurate, and I don't care if it's annoying.

Re. the RAE - 'five star' was me saying that it got the top rating available. I haven't looked at their website for months, whoops. Got recognised and distinguished mixed up, oops. The reason I mentioned it was to show that medical research continues even with socialised healthcare. Doesn't matter what I say though, because you're just going to say that America's is better.

Of course medical research continues. Nobody said otherwise. The fact remains, however, that profit is the driving force of invention. Most things aren't invented because somebody thinks, "hey, this could help people" -- they're invented because somebody thinks, "hey, people will buy this and I'll get money for it!"

Do you need more "anecdotal" evidence to prove to you that medical billing DOES go after your credit rating?

While most of your cites are anecdotal evidence, you did have some credible evidence to prove me wrong on that subject. From my experience, I had always been told that medical bills do not affect credit ratings, and from a few friends and family that have had medical troubles, that has been the trend.

So point conceded, I was wrong. Medical bills can affect credit rating. Thank you.

The fact remains, however, that they shouldn't need to -- even apart from the many insurance providers, there are federal, state, and even per-hospital funding and financing programs. And, of course, that inability to pay will not prevent somebody from receiving medical treatment.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts.

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Next time your local mall has a 10% off deal, go buy a candy bar, then bitch that you didn't get as much back as somebody who spent a hundred dollars. See how long it takes until they start laughing at you.

I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts.

Because the more money people make, the more is taken in taxes. This is a very simple concept here.

And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

Alright, I'm not sure how well these little stories work, because you haven't seemed to be understanding them so far, but I'll try another one. Let's say that you make more money than I do ... let's say you make $100k a year, and let's say I make $50k. Now, under the current tax system, you would be taxed around $40k -- that would be around 40% -- but I would be taxed maybe $10k, around 20%. Now, if we got a tax cut by one percent, you would still pay 99% of that $40,000 that you pay, while I would still pay 99% of that $10,000 that I pay. I would still pay $9,900, which means that I would save one hundred dollars, right? You following me, camera guy? You, however, would pay $39,600, which means you'd save four hundred dollars.

But how can that be? You only make twice as much money as I, how could you get four times as much money back from a tax cut? It's not fair! Eeeeeeeeevil rich!

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter. Either work a more demanding job, work more hours, or get an education. It's pretty simple. I've seen family members work two jobs because they couldn't get enough hours with the one. My father went from being a garbageman to an over-the-road truck driver (can't get much more than that for hours), and eventually settled into an office and used whatever time he had to advance his education so that he could move up the ranks. And that's exactly what happened.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Because they pay more taxes. *sigh*

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

You know what, nevermind, don't worry about it.

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

YOU have that stereotype against him. I don't give a damn what color he is -- I'm not the one saying, "well he's such-and-such color, so this is to be expected."

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right?

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

Also, your assumptions are getting you nowhere. If I WAS insulting you -- which I'm not -- it may very well be simply because I like insulting people. Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care.

Yes, he does. He may not have insurance, but that doesn't mean he can't get care.

He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

You know all those "good decisions" people make to get rich that I was talking about? Skipping out on a job isn't one of them.

Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for.

So he doesn't have healthcare (you said), but he can get healthcare (you said)?

His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

OR he could be responsible and competent, set up a payment plan, search for outside financial help, sell his car if he needed to, etc. Oh, and stay at a damn job.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

The problem with your little idea is that socialized healthcare will receive funding anyway, and provide a lower quality of service anyway. It wouldn't be a situation of "the more you use it, the better it gets" -- it has a certain budget of money that is allocated to it, whether it succeeds or fails. That's one of the reasons why government shouldn't meddle in private business -- the government is the only one that can run at a deficit.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving.

Of course not. Financial success isn't all life is about. Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

[Zargabaath]

[Q] RagnaToad – Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich [/Q]

1) He wasn’t talking about, in what you quoted of his, about people getting rich but about getting healthcare, but I guess you correlate that you must be rich to get healthcare; sorry to tell you but my dad and mom – my family is not rich and they have health care. As do other people I know who are not rich.

2) Locke4God did not say that everyone can become a millionaire. In capitalism everyone has the opportunity to become a millionaire and if they do achieve that status it will not be taken away from them by people who are envious. At the same time if they so happen to squander their money and are no longer millionaires becoming “poor” they will have to defend for themselves. That is capitalism, allowing people to pursue their goals without interference from the government or other people, achieving or failing at their own expense. I know everyone can’t become rich in capitalism or in any other system, however socialism and communism say “if everybody can’t become a millionaire then we will equal it out and bring those who are millionaires down (i.e. social engineering)”. I found it funny that you say “Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox”, you realize this, yet you have negative feelings toward those who do, seeing that they have cheated others for it.

[Q] RagnaToad - You see the people who don’t have health care and can’t pay for it as ‘just a minority’. I can do exactly the same with people who’s costs would be a little higher.[/Q]

True, you can do that, but with yours it is philosophically different than what he is saying. Health care is a service and services have been paid for since they were created, first with the barter system and then with currency – trading value with value. What you advocate is that the service should be traded for value with no value or someone else’s value in return. A person pays for their own expenses; they cannot take someone else’s money to pay for the service that they received. That is called robbery or enslavement, which I’m sure you don’t advocate in other forms and is ultimately, beside what you say, violating the rights of the person victimized. It is irrelevant how much money they make whether or not they are a victim, robbed, or enslaved – it is a crime nonetheless; a crime is a crime no exceptions.

[Q] Locke4God - Is it fair that my taxes would go up to pay for my pot addicted neighbor who has never tried to improve her life. [/Q]

It is not right! Forget fair; fairness is what socialists use to validate their views. What is right and does not violate the rights of humans is what you should use. It is not right that you should pay to improve her life, but never limit your examples to just drug addicts or people who live a bad lifestyle, for it is not limited to just them. It does not matter if they are or are not drug addicts whether or not you or anyone else should pay for someone else it is still wrong. I’m sure you know this I’m just making sure.

[Q] RagnaToad - The issue is not what the definition of ‘fair’ is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians. And I really don’t get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. [/Q]

And a government should treat all her civilians equally, giving help or to hinder anyone. Groups or a society does not have any rights as they are not entities. Only individuals have rights; individuals comprising a group have rights, but they do not get special rights for being in a group. And a government favoring some groups over others is not the proper function of a government as it violates some people’s rights – it does not matter how small the number affected are it is still wrong.

Those people know that government is not the answer but is the problem. They are afraid of the government becoming a communist dictatorship that would control their lives because in order for it to come to pass, the shift towards it must happen at some point and they believe it is happening now. Democrats complained about Bush creating too much power for the executive branch, yet Obama has 32 czars, more than any president before him and more than the previous four combined (I’m sure on how many combined but it is pretty close to four). All these czars do not have to answer to Congress, they are the ones making the policy for the country. Talk about increasing the power of the executive branch, but do democrats complain now? No, because they want a bigger government with loads of power for their own agenda.

[Q] RagnaToad - Bill O’Reilly may not be news reporter, but it’s still on Fox News Channel, isn’t it?[/Q]

What about it? People are free, for the time being, to watch whatever news network they want be it: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, or whatever else they may get. Now if you have been paying attention, Fox News ratings are going up for Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and On The Record; their numbers are so high, they have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined at their respective slots. At the same time that more people are watching Fox lately, CNN and MSNBC are losing viewers! Now when Fox was first created they got the conservative audience from the get go so the people switching to Fox now are more independents and liberals even; the market (the audience) is saying that what Fox is doing is way better than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. If Fox was reporting “shit” all the time, their numbers would reflect such manners, and people would go to other networks. But it is not Fox that is bad, but the other networks most noticeably NBC and MSNBC; CBS, ABC definitely are liberal while CNN is more left-of-center. MSNBC is there to defend Obama from any criticism, why? Because GE is their parent company and GE stands to make huge amounts of money from Obama’s policy. And Obama was supposed to bring ‘change’ to Washington; he is just the same as every other politician and brought only a democratic change.

[Q] Sean- It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report. My brother’s credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments… the bills he had to pay he couldn’t afford, and his credit now suffers as a result. [/Q]

It’s very simple why you had such a hard time with Medicaid; we call that red-tape, an inefficient, broken government program that is going bankrupt. Not that you would have problems with a private insurer, but the consumer has a lot of power that they have forgotten about and or too lazy to use it, so they opt for simple way, for government to step in causing more problems.

It is unfortunate that you brother got cancer, my friend is recovering from pelvic cancer (she’s 21), be that as it may, just because his bills have swamped him and his credit suffer does not mean that other people should help pay for your brother.

1) They did not get cancer, they did not receive treatment, they did not get those services, and do not need to pay for what they did not get.

2) They did not cause the cancer therefore have no responsibility towards the treatment and payment of his bills.

3) People are not slaves.

[Q] Alpha Weapon -This outcome is explained in part by the relatively high inequality in the US. Poverty and poor health are closely related, as low income leads to poor health and poor health leads to low income. Health care costs have been rising faster than the cost of living in general [/Q]

Poorness does not give people special privileges or rights. There is no law or right that all people must be equal, the only equality humans have is that they have the opportunity to succeed or fail as they desire. Sometimes it takes more work to succeed than others but that is not an injustice that should be equalized by hurting other people. Health care is a service that is heavily regulated by the government which is why prices are so high. We can’t get health insurance from a different state, limiting options (low supply + high demand = high costs). If all the regulations were abolished prices would come down, but some people don’t see that; blind to all the regulations that government has set in place skyrocketing prices, they demand more intervention that will eventually lead to the extinction of the private sector with the government and all of its red-tape to the health of its citizenry.

[Q] Govinda - I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries… Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. [/Q]

A society is meaningless, it is not an entity, just a group of people sharing common traits. What someone does is their accomplishment not the race, sex, country; people place too much importance on nationalism or patriotism as it’s called in America. That is one of the reasons WW I started, leading to France and Britain appeasing Hitler, giving countries up for the ‘idea’ of peace that lead to WW II and more casualties than WW I and the end result is Europe is now more of an appeaser than before; they failed to learn their lesson. The American way took from Adam Smith, who said what is best for the individual would lead to the betterment of the country (something along those lines). America believed that people were free to pursue their own happiness but that is being forgotten because of jealousy and envy.

[Q] RagnaToad - Again, you are generalizing. If I were to criticize republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out. [/Q]

While it may be a generalization of what democrats see it as, but in truth taking someone else’s money for your own ends is more selfish than keeping what you earned. Taking someone else’s profit is the brutish image of selfish that you people see when people want to keep what they earned, the latter being rationally selfish. You want irrational selfishness, where anybody can use anyone for their own goals, they can take whatever they want because they need it and are entitled.

[Q] RagnaToad - And you’re not doing that right now? You’re saying all the people who have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do? [/Q]

This is true, and a main reason why I don’t like the idea of health insurance; I don’t think there needs to be a middle-man in health care. You may say there needs to be, but that is because of regulations and health insurance. Health insurance increases costs because there is more money to be gained by the heath care provider. I say if everyone went off of health insurance, letting it die, prices would come down because no one could afford the prices by themselves, hospitals would get no money, they would be unable to stay open, keep staff, and pay for equipment. Now there are two ways it could go: 1) they increase prices so that when the rich want health care it really hurts their wallet, which I say the rich won’t be too keen on that and would want prices dropped and those not rich would not have health care or 2) Prices drop dramatically making it available to more people and now people don’t waste money on health insurance which they may never balance out. Of course, at first when prices are still where they are, people would be hurting but it would re-establish that consumers do have loads of power, lower health care costs, save people money, and not violate anyone’s rights all at the same time.

[Q] RagnaToad - But I must say that the ‘liberal’ media, biased or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. [/Q]

In America most major media companies are way liberal and don’t reconsider their ideas, they allow all the loons, radicals, and pinheads on the air and don’t challenge them at all. And as Sasquatch said the only time the reconsider is when they got caught putting their cookie in the cookie jar.

[Q] RagnaToad - If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn’t agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things. [/Q]

Wrong, it is not the president’s job or the government’s job to be our parents; they are there to protect our rights from internal threats (police) and external threats (military). The president is supposed to carry out the law, veto, decide policy, but is not our baby-sitter or our ‘god’.

[Q] RagnaToad - I’m not talking about the content. I’m talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. [/Q]

Beck does make it more ‘entertaining’ than just the usual way; of course he could be doing it because people understand better through visual mediums than auditory. *gasp* Or he could be doing it for the ‘slow’ people who have a hard time getting the picture. Either way he has found a niche, as his numbers are higher there than at CNN Headline News and they are growing.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - That’s why the world is in such an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don’t give a damn about anybody except for number one. [/Q]

Read up on Ayn Rand and rational selfishness and you can see that there is another way to do things, than the brutish image that is always conjured and that in order to succeed you don’t need to trample on other people.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he’s half white. [/Q]

First not all white politicians are bad, there are many that are. White politicians are evil is not an absolute or true. But I did like the other meaning by people forgetting that he’s half white, as they say he is the first ‘black president’, he’s the first half black- half white president.

What evidence do you have besides you arbitrarily saying that they have these cures? Sasquatch mocked you more than insult you, but how he did it shows the foolishness of your view making you look dumb. It gets the ‘victim’ angry that they just got shown and makes them more irrational unless by some miracle they see the light.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - I mean for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. [/Q]

I’m ok with them not getting health care, but we do believe have that amendment saying no cruel or unusual punishment, we got to keep them alive. But if you want that repealed to exclude medical treatment I’m don’t have a problem.

[Q] Che - Also stop quoting shit from Fox “news”. The less we talk about them, the more we can forget about them [/Q]

The market suggests that Fox news is doing a way better job than CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc as their numbers are way better and are increasing. So it seems they won’t be going away as long as the market finds the good, and remember they already got their core republican audience when the first aired so now they are getting new members (independents and liberals).

[Q] Sean - Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your “five bucks a month” comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you’re full of shit on this. [/Q]

Those who you own money to, want their money back, and if they are smart as some are they will negotiate a more manageable rate because they want their money back. Your experience does not make an absolute on the subject, it just puts your experience in the matter as negatives.

[Q] RagnaToad - Not entirely true. The money that would be have to be sacrificed would make a huge difference in the long run. [/Q]

Possibly, but it is only the earner’s decision to spend not someone else’s to steal. It is not up to a group or another person to sacrifice someone else, that is not respecting people or their rights. The ends never justify the means; if a goal can’t be done through volitional means from everyone that would be involved, the goal must be accomplished a different way. Inalienable rights can never be infringed or tossed to the side at any time.

[Q] Alpha Weapon - Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don’t try hard enough? [/Q]

In some cases this is the truth, for others no. But, you forget this, there is no guarantee to success only the opportunity to succeed and if you do, you keep your rewards/profits. There is no right to success, only the right to take action towards your goals. Some people have to work harder than others to get where the other person is. There is no right to bring down others for an equal footing or to prop up others through compulsory labor or means (i.e. slavery).

[Q] Alpha Weapon Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because… [/Q]

There are a few things that you don’t understand about that premise.

1) You would keep the pie for another time to eat or save your money for a trip, health costs, etc.

2) A sibling and a stranger are two totally different things. People should have a hierarchy of values that places parts of your life in order of importance hopefully it would be done rationally as well. A sibling usually is higher up, by a lot, than a stranger is unless there was some falling out. So it would be rational to give your sibling some pie that you gave unless he was truly undeserving of it. A stranger should have very little value, for they can be seen as a potential trade partner and a good person until proven otherwise.

A stranger that requires your money for health care because they can’t afford it, that gets in the way of paying for your child’s braces is wrong. People have the right to keep the product of their effort and not have it taken it away by those who did not put the effort in.



As for taxes and the rich getting a bigger tax break – the rich are the ones who create the most jobs (except for the government which is on a huge hiring blaze). The more money they have the more they can create new jobs and keep their business afloat. I don’t like tax breaks as they don’t get rid of the problem. I’m in favor of getting rid of a lot of taxes for everyone, EVERYONE, I say. That would mean that government would have less revenue, meaning they could not afford to be as huge as it is, forcing it back to its proper size and function.

[Clint]

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense. They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks? When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter.

My father and grandfather worked very hard, every single day, until they retired. My father had to be in at work at 1 in the morning. He got up at 11 at night and got there early, and then worked until four in the afternoon six days a week. He never called in sick once, and he was never late. My grandfather was the same way. I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank. All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge. He was supposed to take care of us. Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot. I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.

Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.

Oh, and stay at a damn job.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.

Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy. Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine. And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview. I'm not at fault for any of that.

[Sasquatch]

Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense that the people who pay much, much more in proportion to everybody else receive slightly more back?

No, of course it doesn't. They should get much, much more back, because they're paying much, much more. Did you read the little story, or did you just skip over it because it didn't fit your argument and you couldn't come up with anything against it?

They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks?

Honestly, is your argument, "they can afford it, so they should be forced to pay more, despite the fact that they earned their money"? Seriously?

It should be alright to rape a woman if she's been with more than fifteen sexual partners. Hey, it won't hurt her as much as it would a virgin -- she can afford it.

It should also be alright to key cars that already have bad paint jobs, or run into cars that already have dents. They're not pretty anyway, who'll notice? They can afford it.

And why not make it alright to kill people in overpopulated areas? I mean hey, it's for the "common good", and since they're overpopulated anyway, they can afford it, right?

When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.

There is no "tab". They're already paying proportionally more than everybody else. I'm really not sure why you don't understand this incredibly simple concept.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.

And just who do you label as people that "get rich by purging money from other people"?

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.

Then go get a job. It's not the government's (read: other taxpayers') responsibility to support you, it's your own.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.

Letting "the rich" keep some of their own money while still charging them an extremely disproportionate percentage doesn't widen any gaps.

Rich people get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. The so-called "gap" is widening because the poor (some) insist on relying on the government to steal from the successful to give to them, instead of doing it for themselves. But then, if they were the type to rely on themselves, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.

If you want to put it that way, then the people (politicians) who are for OR against it are all upper-class. The same with people (politicians) who are for or against ANY bill.

The fact remains that the majority of the populace is against Obama's healthcare plan.

I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.

If they're middle class, you have nothing to bitch about. So stop bitching. If they wanted to be upper-class, they could work smarter, harder, or longer. If they were satisfied where they were, financially, good for them -- it's because of themselves that they have the money they have, whether it's a lot or a little.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank.

So you blame that on Bush.

It can't be my fault that I have no money, it just can't! I mean, even though I choose to work when and where and how I work and choose to spend my money the way I spend it, being broke isn't my fault at all? I know, it must be Bush's fault!

All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge.

George Walker Bush was in charge of your family's budget? Damn, he never stopped by to balance my checkbook ...

He was supposed to take care of us.

It's not the government's job to take care of your family.

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

You win the quote of the year, kid. Congratulations.

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot.

When did I insult you? When did I call you an idiot?

I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.

What "petty insults"? You believe in a foolish conspiracy theory. I simply listed a few other foolish conspiracy theories. If you're insulted by the idea that you buy into some conspiracy theories but not others, that's on you, not me.

Tell you what -- I'll bite. You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.

It costs who more to die than it does to live? Anybody with a chronic illness could tell you that living with it takes quite the financial toll.

You claim that the cures aren't released for purposes of population control, but fail to address the myriad treatments and medicines that actually do exist that prolong the lives of people with AIDS and cancer. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper -- and control more of the population in a more efficient manner -- to produce medicines that don't prolong their lives, but simply make them more comfortable on their way to death? After all, they somehow make more money from dead people than they do from live people, right?

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.

Then prove me wrong. I've been waiting.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.

There's a difference in being insulted and feeling insulted, kid. You can whine that your feelings got hurt all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually were insulted.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.

Of course you didn't take me seriously -- I disagree with you, so naturally, that makes me wrong, doesn't it?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.

He wasn't going to get fired, he was going to get laid off. There's a difference. When you get a job, you might learn this.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.

He decided to stay home and get fired. Hate to break it to you kid, but that's a decision.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.

If you value the financial protection of your family that much, form a decent budget. Have your grandparents move in with you and sell the other house, or put them in a home, or have the rest of the family share the expenses. Paying for your grandparents' house is not a necessity -- and it certainly isn't a reason to suck money from other taxpayers.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy.

And Bush did? I'd like to hear this. There was a recession before Bush even stepped into office, and eight months into his Presidency, he was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history in one of the prime financial centers of the world. But I suppose that's his fault too, isn't it? Or are you picky about the conspiracy theories you buy into?

Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine.

Of course it's not your fault. Damn ol' Washington wants to make sure you don't get an education so you'll get paid more, or get more hours, or get a more demanding job.

And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you've submitted over three hundred applications and never even received a phone call back?

I'm not at fault for any of that.

No, of course it's not your fault. I mean, you don't meet the qualifications of what employers are looking for, but that's not your fault, right? You've gotten all the education you can, you've gotten all the labor training you can, you know how to do every job in America (or at least more than three hundred of them), you've suggested working any and every shift you can doing the most demanding, demeaning, and disgusting jobs you can, and nobody wants you. It's all Bush's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

I just can't get enough of that. Wow.

[Alpha]

Tell you what -- I'll bite. You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

I don't buy in for conspiracy theories, don't get me wrong, but I think they're interesting. However, why don't you try prove that cures for AIDS and cancer don't exist? It's remarkably hard to do. Sense tells me (and you, I gather) that they don't exist, because I don't think anybody would be that evil (history has proved this principle wrong). But stop saying he's stupid when you couldn't ever prove him incorrect, at least on this one. Besides, get back to healthcare, both of you.

There is no law or right that all people must be equal...

Congratulations, you just failed on American History 101:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To secure this rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;

You should try harder, like Tiny Tim.

Poorness does not give people special privileges or rights

Of course not; it takes them away. Poverty is humiliating.

If all the regulations were abolished prices would come down, but some people don’t see that; blind to all the regulations that government has set in place skyrocketing prices, they demand more intervention that will eventually lead to the extinction of the private sector with the government and all of its red-tape to the health of its citizenry.

If all the regulations were abolished, prices may indeed come down. But I'd argue that because demand for healthcare is inelastic (because it's a necessity), the higher price means higher profits for a private firm. There would be no incentive to lower prices. Health care is not perfect competition, you don't find hospitals on every street corner; or do you? If I listen to you conservatives, American healthcare is the 'best'.

More intervention would not only reduce prices, it would remove them (for people, not the government), or don't you understand what socialised healthcare is? And yes, I'm sure all states seek the extinction of the private sector. That's a real good idea! I wonder why no one does it anymore?

A stranger that requires your money for health care because they can’t afford it ... is wrong.

Yes, because it is wrong to help someone who needs it. The government does not steal our money (bold, because this concept appears new to many), it takes it and puts it to use for the citizenry. If the government took our money solely to pay for itself, I'd be pissed. But no, it builds roads, train tracks, etc. So why should it not take care of our healthcare too?

[Clint]

It doesn't make sense that the people who pay much, much more in proportion to everybody else receive slightly more back?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They have money, and yet, they get more back, whereas, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer. I swear, a retard would be able to understand what I'm arguing. If you make more money, you pay more in taxes. If you make less money, you get more back. That's how it should be, but it's not, because the rich want to get richer, as do the poor, but the rich won't let the poor get richer, because as I've been saying, they're money hungry.

Honestly, is your argument, "they can afford it, so they should be forced to pay more, despite the fact that they earned their money"? Seriously?

What, and just because I'm not rich means I didn't earn my money? In all reality, a lot of people who have money have it because a hundred years ago, their great grandfather struck oil, or gold. They didn't earn their money. In order to earn money, you have to work for it. They were born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

And just who do you label as people that "get rich by purging money from other people"?

Hmm, let's see. Insurance companies, for instance.

Then go get a job. It's not the government's (read: other taxpayers') responsibility to support you, it's your own.

Yes, yes, getting a job. It's a lot easier to say than it is to do. There are people hiring. I've put in applications. I just haven't gotten any calls back. Maybe if I was black I would get a job. It seems that since all the focus has been on civil rights for black people for the last hundred and forty years, white people are the ones nowadays being discriminated against.

Letting "the rich" keep some of their own money while still charging them an extremely disproportionate percentage doesn't widen any gaps.

Yes it does, and as a matter of fact, it has. You said you were middle class a few posts back, and yet, you're so oblivious to things that are going on in society that you fail to realize this. Which proves one thing to me; you're completely full of shit.

Rich people get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich.

Or because they inherited a large sum of money when their parents died.

Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

Or because the poor get proportionately smaller tax cuts than the rich, making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

If they wanted to be upper-class, they could work smarter, harder, or longer.

They worked very smart, very hard, and very long, and yet, we're not upper class. We were upper middle class for a while, until Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus and put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of.

So you blame that on Bush.

Considering that the economic recession began during his administration, of course I blame him. I didn't send the economy into a recession.

I mean, even though I choose to work when and where and how I work and choose to spend my money the way I spend it, being broke isn't my fault at all? I know, it must be Bush's fault!

Let me tell you a little about my life. I worked crap jobs, because that's all somebody with a high school diploma working to get a college education can get. I held those jobs in order to make just enough money to afford a semester of school. I didn't spend any of it. I didn't get a car, I kept living with my parents to stay off the grid as best as I could, and then I herniated a disk and got pneumonia in the same week. First I had to pay my hospital bill, which put me in a hole. Then I had to resort to borrowing money from people in order to pay for 20% of my health care in order to go to physical therapy to fix my back. Then I got laid off from my job because it demanded labor which with my back injury, I could no longer do. Like I said, it's no my fault that I don't have money.

George Walker Bush was in charge of your family's budget? Damn, he never stopped by to balance my checkbook ...

Nope. That's not what I said at all. His administration was in charge when the economy went down the tube. It's a simple concept to grasp. He was in charge of the country, the economy went into recession before his second term was up, so naturally, who's to blame? The president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession or the president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession?

It's not the government's job to take care of your family.

Yeah, they kind of are supposed to take care of my family, considering that my family are all American citizens, and considering that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens, hence the reason why we need a government in the first place.

When did I insult you? When did I call you an idiot?

You didn't call me an idiot... Obviously you don't know what it means to insult somebody's intelligence, or have your own "intelligence" insulted. To insult somebody's intelligence doesn't mean to call somebody an idiot. It's to communicate with them with the notion that they are an idiot who doesn't know what they're is talking about.

What "petty insults"? You believe in a foolish conspiracy theory.

No, I proposed a very intriguing idea. I didn't buy into a conspiracy theory, I'm just not brainwashed by the government like you military types are, and hence, I'm open minded about certain things, which include government corruption and greed.

You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

I don't have the time. I got four classes to pass this semester, with three exams just around the corner. If you're so interested in the subject, then research it on your own time.

It costs who more to die than it does to live? Anybody with a chronic illness could tell you that living with it takes quite the financial toll.

And dying costs a pretty penny, too.

You claim that the cures aren't released for purposes of population control, but fail to address the myriad treatments and medicines that actually do exist that prolong the lives of people with AIDS and cancer.

I failed to address them because I wasn't taking about treatments that prolong life, I was talking about a proposed cure.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper -- and control more of the population in a more efficient manner -- to produce medicines that don't prolong their lives, but simply make them more comfortable on their way to death?

It might be cheaper, but it wouldn't be morally ethic. The government isn't killing people, they're just letting them die. If the person can be helped, they can't just leave him or her to die. As much as I dislike the government, they're not complete monsters. AIDS and cancer are ways for population control, but nobody is murdering anybody.

Then prove me wrong. I've been waiting.

I already did that. Prove me wrong.

There's a difference in being insulted and feeling insulted, kid. You can whine that your feelings got hurt all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually were insulted.

If I felt insulted, then I was insulted, otherwise I wouldn't feel insulted in the first place. You didn't hurt my feelings, you just insulted my intelligence.

Of course you didn't take me seriously -- I disagree with you, so naturally, that makes me wrong, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't make you wrong at all. However, you disagree with me, and that makes me wrong, because you're a ****. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way you are.

He wasn't going to get fired, he was going to get laid off. There's a difference. When you get a job, you might learn this.

Fired, laid off. You're still out of a job, so who the hell cares?

If you value the financial protection of your family that much, form a decent budget. Have your grandparents move in with you and sell the other house, or put them in a home, or have the rest of the family share the expenses. Paying for your grandparents' house is not a necessity -- and it certainly isn't a reason to suck money from other taxpayers.

A few things morally wrong with what you're suggesting. First, to put them in a home is essentially abandoning them. I can't do that, my parents can't do that, and my aunts and uncles can't do that. Second, the house belongs to my father. He is not a selfish man. It's his house, and he will not, under any circumstance, ask any other relatives to help pay for it.

Selling the house and having them move in with us would be a good idea, however, my brother had to recently move back in, so if they moved in, I would have to give up my bedroom, and I would have to sleep in the living room on an air mattress. I wouldn't mind for a while, but there's just not enough room in the house for six adults and three dogs.

And Bush did? I'd like to hear this. There was a recession before Bush even stepped into office, and eight months into his Presidency, he was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history in one of the prime financial centers of the world.

What do I care what happened before Bush was in office? When he was elected, I was only twelve years old. I wasn't even old enough to work then. The country may have been in a recession, but that was all fine and dandy considering the surplus that Clinton built when he was in office. The country could afford to lose some money, which is the way it should be.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you've submitted over three hundred applications and never even received a phone call back?

I don't know how many applications I've submitted. I do at least ten a day. And no, I haven't received one phone call back. My cousin is having the same problem. He got a few offers from places that he used to work at, but he needs a career, not another shit job. Me, I can't even find a shit job.

I mean, you don't meet the qualifications of what employers are looking for, but that's not your fault, right?

I do actually meet the qualifications, as long as I don't have to lift anything heavy. I don't really have the ability to do that again just yet.

You've gotten all the education you can,

Still working on it, which is why I need a job. I got to pay for school somehow.

you've gotten all the labor training you can,

No. I don't.

you know how to do every job in America (or at least more than three hundred of them),

No, but I know how to do a lot of jobs, and jobs I can't do, well, I'm a quick learner.

you've suggested working any and every shift you can doing the most demanding, demeaning, and disgusting jobs you can, and nobody wants you.

There's a problem with this statement. I can't work any and every shift I can. I got four classes in school, and a shitload of school work that has to be done outside of class. I need some time to myself in order to do these things. Another problem is the statement about demanding jobs. I recently herniated a disk in my back, therefore I don't have the ability to lift anything weighing over fifty pounds without the risk of redamaging my back. Because of those two things, which I have to put on my applications, nobody wants me.